Accused entitled to bail for prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress despite criminal antecedents.

The applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following the rejection of his first application on July 18, 2025, due to his criminal antecedents.

The prosecution alleged that a mobile shop in Rajnandgaon was selling fake SIM cards; a co-accused’s memorandum statement implicated the applicant in instructing the procurement of villagers' details to activate and sell these SIMs.

The applicant has been in custody since March 25, 2025, and argued for bail based on the slow progress of the trial, noting that only 4 out of 24 witnesses have been examined.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of regular bail despite having criminal antecedents of a similar nature.

2. Whether the prolonged period of incarceration and the slow pace of the trial proceedings justify his release on bail.

The Court considered Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 439 CrPC) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail.

It further referenced the penal provisions under Sections 318(4) [Cheating], 317(4), and 3(5) [Joint Liability] of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, along with Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act.

The court balanced the gravity of the offense and criminal history against the fundamental principle of the right to a speedy trial and the prolonged duration of pretrial detention.

The Court acknowledged the State’s opposition based on the chargesheet and the applicant’s prior history.

However, the analysis centered on the procedural delay: the applicant has been detained for nearly a year (since March 2025), and the prosecution has examined less than 20% of its cited witnesses.

The Court reasoned that since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time and the investigation (chargesheet filing) is complete, continued incarceration is no longer necessitated.

To mitigate risks associated with the applicant’s liberty and history, the Court imposed stringent conditions regarding his presence at trial and prohibited seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The holding is contingent upon several conditions: the applicant must not seek adjournments when witnesses are present, must appear on all fixed dates, and must comply with Sections 269 and 209 of the BNS in case of default or absence.

Additionally, the Court directed the trial court to make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial within six months.